^Repf4ni from  the 

it  :■ 

YEAR-BOOK 

t 

OF  THE 

GERMAN  AMERICAN  HISTORICAL 
SOCIETY  OF  ILLINOIS 


Vol.  XII 


i'' 

A  POLITICAL  PROPHECY  OF  THE  FORTY- 
EIGHTERS  IN  AMERICA 


'  ^  /><;  ,  ^  ^^.\^  y  .-  rx  ^‘V^-  jj/.  ..>;/'> ‘V  ^  '  *'Vi>!*^^** 

:::v:i«:;;i»|g|f|ji 


',U."  '■- 

-;•  ■  '  ^  •■-.•.  ’  ‘'S’'  ji-..  ::i-‘'y,  '•>  /  •;u‘- 

.  ,  ■^^-'  '  ^  ”■ 
-  -  "  .  p." '  'i  '  V-  -  - '  --‘^  ;  f 

•'.  A- ’  r.NVf '.  :(^■\ 

/'  ■-■'X  ,,.  ■■'^  :/.t  •«■-,  ■  •..  i.;.  •>  ,.;  'Y^.'^,^ 


'v  *  c . 

‘  ,7.  ■  •<>  .  V-  -  -  '  --‘^  ,  .“A  .  f  j-  ‘-•^,/  i 

‘  >'■,  ’  ■',  A  •'’ ^'/ i 

■  ,.■"  ~  •fr';‘'r,^’<- 

V  A  '  A-  '  '.  -•  '  r?  '  *  , 

"  ■  ‘  A,  '  -  ,  \-^V'; 

'  s/  ^ '■ 

•'  A'.'  .  •  "  -.  ■  'A-  > -V  V-  A-:i 


K  < 


'1;  A'A 


'n'  '  -’-i’ 


•  'r 


A’  7,Cv'A-:'A^i 
-. .  >.A;:X':::,:-r:7 .:;’g# 

A  X'X 777’ V  A;'A=,?^ 

’  V.  <'  '  V  v;  '  aPH 

7.  7'^  •  a'  ,'  '  i  ‘  A.  ■  ?^VXv.. 

‘■'  ■/■■■A  -'  .  ■  /'■  ,  -.: 

■'^  'V'  .V  ■  m 

'■7  ■'.  .;■■;■  x;-'- 
•  '  .’ "--.V  ■'  7 


";v' 


i,'  ',  -  ^"'a' r'TA^;/7y<H 


:V'-p 

''  ’X  .  V>>Av7>,v 


.A  <  aI  ’X 


/ 


A  POLITICAL  PROPHECY  OF  THE  FORTY-EIGHTERS 
IN  AMERICA 

By  Julius  Goebel,  Jr.,  University  op  Illinois 

I. 

^  Political  prophecy  is  a  term  which  occurs  not  infrequently 

in  the  historical  literature  of  Germany,  where  it  has  a  dis¬ 
tinct  meaning.  While,  in  English,  the  word  prophecy  still 
seems  to  be  confined  chiefly  to  the  religious  sphere  where  it 
originated,  in  Germany  it  is  applied  also  to  the  highest  inter¬ 
est  of  a  people,  namely  its  national  destiny. 

A  political  prophecy  of  this  kind,  I  venture  to  call  The 
Neiv  Rome,  by  Charles  Goepp  and  Theodor  Poesche,  pub¬ 
lished  in  1853,  of  which  this  paper  is  to  treat.  It  was  thru 
this  book  that  the  American  people,  as  contemporary  reviews 
show,  for  the  first  time  should  become  aware  of  the  great  in¬ 
fluence  which  national  prophets  may  exert,  not  only  upon  the 
intellectual  and  moral  life  of  a  great  nation,  but  also  upon  its 
political  ideals. 

The  question  naturally  arises  here  as  to  what  the  real  na¬ 
ture  of  prophecy  is,  when  freed  of  its  biblical  connotation. 
Rudolph  Hildebrand,  the  eminent  German  philologist,  in  a 
paper  entitled  Prophezeiungen  defines  it  as  follows : 

giebt  iit  afieii  meufc^Iid)en  SSerljartniffen,  bte  al§ 
in  Qrbeitenber  33en:)egung  finb,  einen  ^unft  ober  eine  Sinie,  too 
bte  eigentlid^e  treibenbe  ^raft  tuol^nt,  unb  trifft  man  in  gliicflid^er 
©tnnbe  mit  feinem  S^enfen  unb  3iil)Ien  in  biefen  ^5nnft,  fo  fann 
'  man  ben  nocf)  nid^t  gegebenen  gortgong  ber  33en)egung  be§  @Qn= 

>  sen  im  borauS  fel^en,  fomeit  nidjt  dufeere,  unberec^enbare  0tdrun» 

^  gen  il^n  ^emmen;  man  fiel^t  bie  Cinie  entlang,  bte  noc^  nicf)t  ba 

ift  unb  bocf)  in  ben  31ert)dltniffen  fc^on  mit  gegeben.  biefem 
©inne  mirb  benn  and)  nod^  tdglid)  firofitieseifi  im  fleinen  mie  im 
grofeen  Ceben.''  ^ 

It  is  for  this  reason  that  we  often  speak  of  poets  as  proph¬ 
ets.  A  glance  at  the  history  of  Germany  will  show,  moreover, 

*  Hildebrand,  Tagebuchblatter,  p.  218. 


/7^ 


/  // 


„  y- 


1 


that  in  times  of  great  national  disaster  or  crises  there  arise 
men  who,  even  more  than  the  poets,  fulfill  the  mission  of  na¬ 
tional  prophets.  At  such  times  of  national  calamity,  men  like 
Fichte  will  step  forth  and  will  give  solace  by  looking  out  be¬ 
yond  the  present  vicissitudes  into  the  future.  Thru  four 
hundred  years  of  German  history,  and  even  earlier,  we  meet 
with  men  of  the  prophet  type  proclaiming  national  unity, 
national  regeneration  and  final  w'orld  dominion  of  Germany. 
In  the  earliest  times  these  prophecies  crystalized  about  the  per¬ 
son  of  single  heroes,  such  as  Frederick  Barbarossa.  The  Ger¬ 
man  people  had  felt  that  with  his  death  the  glory  of  the  empire 
was  past,  and  certain  folk  legends  grew  up  concerning  the 
mountain  Kyffhauser,  where  he  was  pictured  as  sleeping  un¬ 
til  the  time  was  ripe  for  him  to  return  and  restore  the  pristine 
glory  of  the  empire.  These  local  legends  gradually  spread 
until  in  the  beginning  of  the  fifteenth  century  they  had  be¬ 
come  national  traditions.  The  Friedrichsage  lived  until  the 
time  of  the  Franco-Prussian  war,  and  its  influence  upon 
German  leaders  not  only  of  the  Middle  Ages,  but  also  of  mod¬ 
ern  times  can  easily  be  discerned. 

Another  hero  in  whom  the  national  hopes  and  aspirations 
of  the  German  people  became  embodied  was  Arminius.  Again 
and  again  we  find  him  the  subject  of  German  epics  and  dra¬ 
mas,  the  most  notable  of  which  was  Kleist’s  Hermannschlacht. 
It  is  with  the  coming  of  Goethe  and  Schiller,  and  still  later 
of  Fichte,  that  national  prophecy  assumes  its  loftiest  char¬ 
acter  in  Germany.  Goethe’s  Epimenides  and  Schiller’s  Wil¬ 
helm  Tell  are  proof  how  these  poets  who  had  striven  so  long 
for  the  intellectual  supremacy  of  their  country  also  realized 
the  full  significance  of  the  national  political  movement.  And 
it  was  by  his  inspiring  Reden  an  die  Deutsche  Nation,  that 
Fichte  aroused  his  people  to  shake  off  the  shackles  of  the 
tyrant  Napoleon. 

I  have  already  said  that  these  national  prophets  promise 
not  only  national  unity  and  regeneration,  but  also  the  forma¬ 
tion  of  a  new  and  more  powerful  world  empire.  We  find  that 
prophecies  of  this  sort  originate  during  and  after  the  decline 
of  the  Holy  Roman  Empire.  They  are  very  significant  in  that 


they  show  how  deeply  rooted  was  the  conception  of  a  great  and 
all-embracing  world  federation.  It  is  known  how  this  phantom 
of  an  empire,  rivalling  that  of  ancient  Rome,  held  the  medie¬ 
val  world  with  an  almost  uncanny  fascination.  To  this  illu¬ 
sion  was  due  in  no  small  degree  the  unhappy  fate  of  Ger¬ 
many  for  so  many  centuries. 

A  most  remarkable  prophecy  of  a  future  German  world 
empire  differing  from  the  old  Holy  Roman  Empire  appears  e. 
g.  as  early  as  1669,  in  a  chapter  of  the  book  Der  Abenteuerli- 
cJie  SimpUcissimus,  by  Christoph  von  Grimmelshausen.^  In 
this  tale,  a  half-witted  fellow  who  imagines  himself  to  be  the 
God  Jupiter,  gives  expression  to  some  very  lofty  and  noble 
ideas.  He  proposes  in  his  capacity  of  a  god  to  bring  into  exist¬ 
ence  a  German  hero  who  shall  go  forth  and  subdue  the  evil  and 
help  the  good.  England,  Sweden,  and  Denmark,  Spain,  France, 
and  Portugal  will  all  come  under  the  dominion  of  this  hero 
(the  incarnation  perhaps,  of  Frederick  Barbarossa)  and 
through  a  parliament  of  the  wise  men  of  these  countries  he 
will  ameliorate  the  conditions  of  the  poor  by  abolishing  all 
taxes.  Absolute  equality  and  freedom  of  religion  will  char¬ 
acterize  his  kingdom.  Such  in  brief  is  the  outline  of  the 
world  empire  of  the  half-witted  fool. 

During  the  eighteenth  century  which  marks  the  lowest  ebb 
of  national  patriotism  in  German  political  history,  we  find 
the  idea  of  a  future  political  empire  almost  forgotten.  In 
its  stead  arise  the  conceptions  of  German  intellectual  supre¬ 
macy  and  of  a  cosmopolitanism  independent  of  state.  It  is 
very  interesting  to  note  that,  while  this  latter  conception  takes 
a  firm  hold  upon  continental  Europe ;  in  England  it  is  of  prac¬ 
tically  no  infiuence.^ 

Strange  as  it  may  seem,  it  is  in  France  where  the  idea  of 
cosmopolitanism  first  originates  and  takes  a  strong  hold  upon 
the  intellectual  life.  From  France  the  idea  spread  to  Ger- 

'  Grimmelshausen,  Der  Abenteuerliche  Simplicissimus  (Neudrucke 
deutscher  Literaturwerke,  v.  26),  Bk.  Ill,  c.  4  &  5,  p.  209  et  sq. 

^  This  is  but  natural,  for  in  a  firmly  established  state  with  a  pro¬ 
nounced  sense  of  nationality,  such  as  England,  the  vague  political  ideas 
of  cosmopolitanism  could  find  little  favor. 


many  where  it  was  heartily  welcomed  by  that  politically  dis¬ 
organized  country.  The  spread  of  this  idea  and  its  influence 
in  Europe  is  easily  explained  by  the  fact  that  French  influ¬ 
ence  and  culture  were  dominant  in  the  intellectual  world  as 
well  as  in  political  spheres.  With  the  passing  of  the  eigh¬ 
teenth  century  the  original  conception  of  cosmopolitanism  is 
gradually  forgotten,  on  account  of  the  revolution  in  France. 
From  this  time  forth  until  the  time  of  Napoleon  Ill’s  coup 
d’etat  in  1852,  France  comes  to  be  regarded  as  the  leader  of 
republicanism,  a  republicanism,  to  be  sure,  which  to  a  certain 
extent,  is  cosmopolitan  in  character.  France  becomes  now  a 
haven  of '  refuge  for  the  political  exiles  not  only  of  Ger¬ 
many,  but  also  of  Italy  and  Poland.  The  July  revolution  in 
1830  immediately  caused  the  republicans  in  Germany  and 
Italy  to  break  forth  in  open  rebellion.  A  similar  effect  was 
produced  by  the  Revolution  of  1848. 

After  the  quelling  of  this  latter  rebellion  in  Germany,  hun¬ 
dreds  of  its  leaders  and  their  followers,  fllled  with  republican 
aspirations  and  subconscious  reminiscences  of  former  prophe¬ 
cies  of  a  future  world  dominion,  emigrated  to  France  and 
Switzerland,  where  they  seemed  to  And  for  a  short  time  the 
realization  of  their  hopes  of  a  republic. 

With  the  rise  of  Napoleon  III  it  soon  became  evident  to 
the  refugees  that  their  presence  in  France  and  even  in  Switz¬ 
erland  was  not  desired.  In  many  cases  they  were  summarily 
ordered  to  depart.^  The  coup  d’etat  in  December,  1851,  ab¬ 
solutely  shattered  their  hopes  of  a  cosmopolitan  republic  in 
Europe.  Although  a  great  many  of  the  exiles  turned  to 
England,  yet  the  majority,  and  especially  the  radicals  among 
them,  decided  to  emigrate  to  the  United  States,  which,  in 
their  opinion,  was  the  only  remaining  republic  in  the  world. 
Hopes  of  making  Germany  a  republic  were  dashed  to  the 
ground.  It  is  only  in  the  light  of  their  republican  ideas  that 
we  can  rightly  judge  the  seemingly  traitorous  propaganda 
against  Germany  carried  on  by  the  Radicals  in  this  country 
and  as  it  found  expression  in  The  Neiv  Rome.  To  most  of 

^  Rattermann,  Article  on  C.  Esselen,  contained  in  this  volume. 


4 


the  forty-eighters  the  German  Nationalstaat  ^  meant  a  dem¬ 
ocratic  state  more  or  less  after  the  pattern  of  the  French 
republic,  and  to  realize  their  ideal,  they  believed  themselves 
justified  in  using  every  possible  means. 

II. 

We  have  seen  in  the  above,  the  many  and  various  influen¬ 
ces  which  helped  to  shape  the  intellectual  development  and 
the  political  thinking  of  the  German  liberals  and  how  these 
forces  culminated  in  the  successive  revolutions  of  1821,  1830, 
and  1848,  when  thousands  of  patriotic  men  forced  into  exile, 
sacrificed  their  homes  and  their  future  for  the  sake  of  their 
political  ideals.  Let  us  now  consider  the  nature  of  the  move¬ 
ment  of  the  forty-eighters  in  America,  and  the  men  who  led  it. 

The  emigration  of  the  German  political  refugees  to  Ameri¬ 
ca  began  in  the  twenties  of  the  nineteenth  century,  when  the 
persecution  of  the  demagogues  which  followed  the  Carlsbad 
Decrees  drove  a  number  of  promising  and  highly  intelligent 
men  to  this  country.  The  most  conspicuous  of  these  men  was 
Karl  Follen,^  who  later  became  one  of  the  principal  leaders 
of  the  Abolitionists.  On  the  whole,  however,  the  exodus  of 
the  political  refugees  in  the  twenties  was  insignificant  com¬ 
pared  with  the  emigration  which  set  in  after  1830,  following 
the  various  disturbances  and  revolutions  in  Europe  of  that 
year.  Thousands  of  German  citizens  came  to  the  United 
States  during  this  period.  The  majority  of  them  hailed 
from  the  principalities  along  the  Rhine,  such  as  Nassau  and 
Hessen,  and  many  of  them  settled  in  the  newly  opened  lands 
of  Missouri  and  western  Illinois.^  But  the  great  tide  of  im¬ 
migration  was  still  to  come. 

It  was  the  Revolution  of  1848  that  brought  literally  hun¬ 
dreds  of  thousands  of  immigrants  to  this  country,  among 
whom  there  were  men  of  the  highest  intellectual  and  social 
position.  In  contrast,  however,  to  the  immigrants  from  France, 
Italy  and  Hungary,  who  were  for  the  most  part  aristocrats,  the 

^Meinecke,  Weltburgertum  und  Nationalstaat,  p.  17. 

^  Kapp,  Aus  und  liber  Araerika,  v.  I,  p.  309. 

8  Ibid. 


5 


German  settlers  were  democratic  in  character  as  was  the  entire 
political  movement  which  had  carried  them  to  this  country. 

The  German  is  by  no  means  clannish,  and  whatever  recog¬ 
nition  he  wins,  he  may  ascribe  to  individual  effort.  The  forty- 
eighters  had  an  especially  difficult  task  in  winning  recogni¬ 
tion  in  the  United  States  and  their  troubles  were  increased  by 
the  fact  that  many  of  their  countrymen  who  had  settled  in 
America  previous  to  them  did  not  sympathize  either  with 
their  ideals  or  their  political  aspirations.  Consequently  there 
arose  between  the  two  groups  a  great  bitterness  especially  in 
political  matters.^  The  earlier  immigrants  immediately  dubbed 
the  newcomers  ‘‘Greenhorns,”  a  term  which  was  shortened  to 
‘  ‘  Greens,  ’  ’  while  the  latter  retorted  by  calling  their  opponents 
the  “Grays,”  as  expressive  of  what  they  believed  to  be  their 
musty  and  antiquated  ideas. 

In  order  to  understand  fully  the  feeling  of  antagonism 
between  these  opposing  parties,  it  is  necessary  to  consider 
briefly  the  doctrines  and  ideals  of  the  forty-eighters.  The 
typical  forty-eighter  was  at  the  same  time  a  radical  and  an 
idealist.  Unable  to  carry  out  his  revolutionary  propaganda 
in  Europe,  upon  his  arrival  in  America,  he  transferred  his  pro¬ 
gram  bodily  to  this  country.  America,  from  the  beginning  of 
the  eighteenth  century  had  been  glorifled  in  Germany  as  the 
land  of  freedom,  and  nothing  could  equal  the  disappointment 
of  the  refugee  upon  flnding  that  this  land  of  the  free  fostered 
one  of  the  most  abominable  of  human  institutions.  The  fire 
of  his  wrath  he  now  turned  from  the  European  despots  to  the 
American  slave-holder.  At  the  same  time  he  keenly  felt  the 
necessity  of  a  national  regeneration  if  the  American  republic 
was  to  be  saved  from  destruction.^  Thousands  of  exiles  who 
otherwise  would  have  wasted  their  energies  or  come  to  ruin  in 
this  country  became  useful  and  influential  citizens  by  finding 
a  field  for  their  activities  in  the  abolition  movement.^ 

^  Koerner,  Memoirs,  v.  I,  p.  549. 

“  Heinzen,  Teutscher  Radikalismus  in  Amerika,  Neue  Folge,  v.  2, 
p.  638,  also  Kaufmann,  Die  Deutschen  im  Amerikanischen  Biirgerkriege, 
p.  104. 

®  Kapp,  Aus  nnd  iiber  Amerika,  v.  I,  p.  312. 


6 


No  better  example  of  this  can  be  found  than  Karl  Heinzen, 
the  eminent  Boston  journalist  and  political  thinker.  Heinzen 
had  been  one  of  the  foremost  leaders  of  the  revolutionary 
movement  in  Germany.  Although  exiled  he  had  returned  from 
New  York  to  take  part  in  the  uprising  in  Baden.  After  the 
failure  of  this  rebellion  he  fled  again  to  New  York  and  en¬ 
tered  upon  various  journalistic  ventures,  during  which  he  took 
a  prominent  part  in  politics.  He  finally  settled  in  Boston 
and  edited  Ber  Pionier,  the  famous  periodical,  in  which  he 
gave  utterance  to  his  political  program.  It  is  interesting  to 
note  that  this  program  differs  but  little  from  the  radical  pro¬ 
gram  which  he  had  previously  advanced  as  a  leader  of  the 
revolutionary  party  in  Germany.^  A  comparison  of  these 
two  programs  may  not  be  out  of  place  as  it  will  aid  us  in  ob¬ 
taining  a  better  insight  into  the  real  nature  of  the  movement. 


Program  of  the  German 
Revolutionary  Party  ^ 

1.  Germany  to  be  an  in¬ 
divisible  union. 

2.  Administration  to  be  by 
the  people  themselves  through 
a  single  chamber  of  deputies, 
and  a  ministry  dependent  on 
the  majority  in  the  house. 

3.  Common  and  direct 
franchise  to  all,  with  excep¬ 
tion  of  prisoners  and  inmates 
of  insane  asylums. 

4.  Freedom  of  speech, 
press,  teaching  and  assembly. 

5.  Abolition  of  the  stand- 


Program  of  the  Radicals 
IN  THE  United  States  ^ 

1.  Total  abolition  of  the 
presidency  and  of  the  office 
of  state  governor,  and  of  the 
system  of  two  houses ;  and  the 
conversion  of  the  federative 
republic  into  a  republic  one 
and  indivisible. 

2.  Representatives  subject 
to  recall  by  their  constituents 
at  any  time.^ 


^  Friedrich  Hassaurek  had  a  still  more  radical  and  anarchistic  pro¬ 
gram. 

^  Heinzen,  Teiitscher  Radikalismus  in  Amerika,  Neue  Folge,  v.  2, 
p.  638. 

®  I  have  taken  this  from  Koerner,  Memoirs,  v\  I,  p.  566.  I  have 
amended  certain  passages  where  Koerner’s  English  was  too  unidiomatic. 

*  Compare  this  with  the  present  recall  which  we  have  in  several  states. 


7 


ing  army  and  the  establish¬ 
ment  of  a  militia  system. 

6.  Guaranty  of  jury  trial 
in  both  civil  and  criminal 
cases. 

7.  Administrative  appoint¬ 
ments  to  be  confirmed  by  the 
chamber  of  deputies. 

8.  Intervention  of  Ger¬ 
many  in  favor  of  republican 
governments.  The  establish¬ 
ment  of  a  congress  of  peoples 
and  of  a  European  tribunal  in 
place  of  the  existing  diplo¬ 
matic  system.^ 

9.  Abolition  of  feudalism 
and  feudal  dues.^ 

10.  (Deals  with  the  regu¬ 
lation  of  taxes). 

11.  Ownership  of  land  to 
be  regulated  by  the  state. 

12.  Those  incapable  of  lab¬ 
oring  shall  be  assisted,  and 
work  secured  for  those  who 
are  able  to  work. 

13.  Establishment  of  a 
general  public  school  system. 

14.  Establishment  of  a  free 
postal  system. 

15.  The  state  shall  provide 
for  free  places  of  amusement 
and  recreation  for  the  people. 

16.  Emancipation  of 
women. 


3.  Abolition  of  the  policy 
of  neutrality.  The  United 
States  to  intervene  against 
intervention  as  practiced  in 
Europe.  Instant  abolition  of 
slavery. 


4.  All  lands  to  be  free  and 
the  poor  settler  to  be  assisted 
by  the  state. 

5.  No  man  to  own  more 
land  than  the  state  allows. 


6.  In  all  German  schools, 
German  teachers  to  be  em¬ 
ployed. 

7.  Establishment  of  a  Ger¬ 
man  university  at  the  expense 
of  the  government. 


^  Compare  this  with  the  present  peace  movement  and  the  Hague 
Tribunal. 

^  There  were  still  relics  of  feudalism  in  Germany  at  this  time  in 
the  form  of  tithes,  “Frondienst,”  etc. 


8 


8.  Abolition  of  penitentia¬ 
ries.  They  shall  be  trans¬ 
formed  into  houses  of  reform. 

9.  The  government  shall 
own  all  railroads.  The  rail¬ 
road  to  the  Pacific  shall  be 
built  at  the  cost  of  the  state. 

10.  No  official  position  to 
be  allowed  persons  dependent 
on  the  Pope. 

In  a  certain  sense,  this  program  of  Heinzen’s  may  be 
called  prophetic, — and,  while  at  that  time  it  may  have  seemed 
visionary  and  even  ridiculous,^  nevertheless,  many  of  the 
reforms  proposed  have  since  been  carried  out  or  are  at 
present  being  advocated  by  such  men  as  W.  J.  Bryan  and 
Theodore  Roosevelt.  Heinzen,  like  many  another  reformer, 
was  some  fifty  years  in  advance  of  his  contemporaries. 

It  was  inevitable  that  men  like  Heinzen  who  had  played 
so  prominent  a  role  in  European  polities,  should  exercise  a 
powerful  influence  upon  the  political  attitude  of  their  coun¬ 
trymen  in  America.  Yet,  in  spite  of  their  patriotic  activity, 
they  were  at  first  not  only  underestimated  as  a  group,  but 
their  individual  efforts  were  seldom  recognized.  Adhering 
too  rigidly  to  their  principles  and  hence  despising  the  com¬ 
mon  American  practice  of  compromise,  it  was  impossible  for 
them  to  be  popular  with  the  practical  politicians  of  their 
time.^  In  addition  to  this  fact  they  were  convinced  that  the 
unscrupulousness  and  corruption  of  American  political  life 
was  bound  to  undermine  the  very  foundations  of  the  re¬ 
public,  and  they  strove  against  this  with  might  and  main. 
Up  to  this  time  the  German  immigration  had  attached  itself 
almost  exclusively  to  the  Democratic  party,'^  and  even  as  late 

^  I  have  omitted  certain  sections  which  bore  no  relation  whatever  to 
the  American  program  of  the  radicals. 

^  Koerner,  Memoirs,  v.  I,  p.  566. 

®  Kapp,  Alls  und  iiber  Amerika,  v.  I,  p.  314. 

*  Von  Holst,  Constitutional  and  Political  History  of  the  United 
States,  V.  V,  p.  159. 


17.  Abolition  of  the  penal 
system  and  of  capital  punish¬ 
ment. 

18.  Absolute  freedom  of 
religion.  Church  property  to 
revert  to  the  state.^ 


9 


as  1850  it  was  considered  a  sort  of  heresy  not  to  belong  to 
it.  Nevertheless,  the  Germans  occupied  an  almost  despicable 
position  in  this  party.  In  fact,  they  were  universally  known 
as  ‘‘voting  cattle.”^  Nothing  but  the  poorest  offices,  such  as 
remote  consulates,  or  post-offices,  were  given  them,  and  in 
every  respect  their  relation  to  the  political  leaders  was  that 
of  servant  to  master.  Even  the  German  press  in  this  coun¬ 
try  was  on  the  side  of  the  political  bosses,  and  looked  up  to 
them  with  a  sort  of  reverential  awe.  Imagine  the  effect  of 
the  merciless  criticism,  the  result  of  the  high  ethical  stand¬ 
ards,  which  Heinzen  and  Esselen  in  their  journals  and  pub¬ 
lications  directed  against  these  political  conditions  and  their 
advocates,  the  unscrupulous  and  corrupt  politicians.  Little 
wonder  that  the  reformers  met  with  tremendous  opposition 
‘not  only  among  the  older  generation  of  their  countrymen  but 
also  among  the  American  politicians  who  soon  came  to  feel 
the  force  of  the  new  ideals. 

American  materialism  and  German  idealism  were  now 
brought  into  direct  and  sharp  conflict.  To  be  sure,  in  the 
end,  German  idealism  was  to  triumph,  but  the  bitterness  of 
feeling  on  the  part  of  the  American  politicians  found  its 
expression  in  the  notorious  Know  Nothing  movement,  one 
of  the  most  disgraceful  chapters  in  the  history  of  American 
politics. 

The  Know  Nothing  Party,  also  known  as  the  Nativist  and 
as  the  American  Party,  made  its  first  appearance  in  the  year 
1854,  although  it  had  come  into  existence  some  time  previous. 
Its  first  victory  was  won  in  Salem,  Massachusetts  in  January, 
1854,  when  a  candidate  who  had  not  been  publicly  nominated 
was  elected.  Similar  occurrences  took  place  in  rapid  succes¬ 
sion  in  other  and  larger  cities.  For  a  long  time  the  origin 
and  creed  of  this  conspiracy  against  the  foreigner  were  un¬ 
known,^  and  the  great  parties  found  themselves  confronted  by 
a  secret  and  mysterious .  foe  which  they  had  to  combat.  The 

^  Kapp,  Aus  und  iiber  Amerika,  v.  I,  p.  317. 

^Woodburn,  Political  Parties  and  Party  Problems  in  the  United 
States,  p.  84  says  that  their  motto  was  the  words  attributed  to  Wash¬ 
ington:  “Put  none  but  Americans  on  guard  tonight.” 


10 


one  clew  to  the  purpose  of  their  activities  was  that  their  poli¬ 
cy  was  clearly  nativistic,  anti-Irish  in  the  North  especially  in 
New  York,  and  anti-German  in  the  South  and  West.  Two 
parts  of  their  program  were  particularly  significant :  public 
offices  should  be  filled  by  native  Americans  only,  and  naturali¬ 
zation  should  be  allowed  only  after  four  yefirs  of  residence  in 
this  country.^  The  programs  of  the  German  radicals  were 
seized  upon  with  avidity  by  the  Know  Nothings,  and,  as  Von 
Holst  expresses  it,  were  used  as  heavy  artillery  in  their  war¬ 
fare.^  In  December,  1854,  Senator  Adams  of  Mississippi, 
brought  forward  a  bill  to  amend  the  naturalization  laws  so  that 
naturalization  would  be  granted  only  after  twenty-one  years 
residence  in  this  country.^  This  bill,  although  it  was  never 
passed,  indicated  that  while  the  movement  in  the  North  was 
directed  chiefiy  against  the  Irish  and  the  Catholics,  and  to  a 
certain  extent  was  inspired  by  patriotic  motives,  the  nativists 
in  the  South  saw  in  the  Germans  an  antislavery  element  too 
dangerous  to  be  tolerated. 

The  Know  Nothing  Party  was  of  short  duration,  for  once 
its  secret  was  out  its  decline  was  rapid.  Its  members  in¬ 
spired  fear  only  as  long  as  they  fought  invisibly.^  A  move¬ 
ment  of  this  sort  in  the  face  of  the  overwhelming  number  of 
immigrants  and  citizens  of  foreign  descent  was  doomed  to 
failure.  Its  champions  could  not  point  to  a  time  when  this 
country  began  to  be  purely  American  and  ceased  to  be  Eu¬ 
ropean  to  a  certain  extent,  or  when  it  had  ever  been  anything 
but  a  republic  of  immigrants.®  The  national  victory  of  the 
Know  Nothings  might  easily  have  meant  the  fall  of  this  re¬ 
public.  The  direction  of  the  movement  against  the  Germans 
was  another  evidence,  moreover,  of  the  ignorance  of  its  lead- 

^  Von  Holst,  Constitutional  and  Political  History  of  the  United 
States,  vol.  V,  p.  81. 

^  Ibid,  p.  188. 

®  Congressional  Globe,  Second  Session,  Thirty-third  Congress,  p.  24. 

*  Von  Holst,  Constitutional  and  Political  History  of  the  United 
States,  V.  V,  p.  187. 

^Heinzen,  Teutscher  Radikalismus  in  Amerika,  Neue  Folge,  v.  1, 
p.  55. 


11 


ers  concerning  the  historical  achievements  and  the  cultural 
influence  of  the  German  element  in  this  country^ 

In  order  to  arrive  at  a  just  estimate  of  the  movement 
against  the  Germans  of  1848,  we  must  remember  also  that  the 
better  classes  of  Americans  had  not  really  learned  to  know  the 
true  character  of  the  German  refugees.  Their  knowledge  was 
confined  to  the  uneducated  type  of  immigrants  and  even  these  - 

they  did  not  take  the  trouble  to  know  thoroughly.  Many  ^ 

Americans  had  forgotten  the  fact  that  the  social  and  educa¬ 
tional  status  of  their  immigrant  forefathers  had  been  no  bet¬ 
ter  than  that  of  many  poor  Germans.  That  the  educated 
German  refugees  were  not  known  better  to  the  Americans 
was  however  to  a  large  extent  their  own  fault.^  They  had  no 
wish  to  be  Americanized,  and  in  their  minds  their  coming  to 
this  country  was  nothing  but  a  short  sojourn  until  events  had 
shaped  themselves  for  their  final  return  to  Germany.  It  was 
not  until  the  Know  Nothing  movement  had  played  itself  out, 
and  the  Republican  Party  had  begun  to  assume  a  more  im¬ 
portant  role  in  the  politics  of  this  country,  that  the  German 
radicals  found  themselves,  so  to  speak,  and  for  the  first  time 
began  to  exert  a  practical  influence  in  national  politics.  At 
the  convention  of  the  Republican  Party  in  Philadelphia  in 
1856  the  forty-eighters  joined  the  party  en  masse, ^  and  the 
various  elements  which  had,  until  this  time,  been  passing 
their  time  in  ceaseless  bickerings,  were  at  last  united  in  one 
common  cause.  The  election  in  1860  found  practically  the 
whole  German  population  on  the  side  of  the  Republicans,  and 
in  the  opinion  of  the  leading  forty-eighters  it  was  chiefly  € 

through  the  efforts  of  the  Germans  that  the  election  was  final¬ 
ly  decided  in  favor  of  the  Republican  cause.^  It  is  not  to  be 
supposed  that  this  transition  from  German  revolutionists  in 
temporary  exile  to  practical  American  politicians,  was  an 

^  The  most  vicious  excrescence  of  this  movement  was  the  so-called 
“rowdies.” 

^  Heinzen,  Teutscher  Radikalismus  in  Amerika,  Neiie  Folge,  v. 

I,  p.  159. 

^  Kapp,  Aus  iind  iiber  Amerika,  v.  I,  p.  318. 

*  Kapp,  Aus  und  iiber  Amerika,  v.  I,  p.  318. 


12 


easy  or  a  rapid  one.  It  was,  perhaps,  in  1854,  that  it  first 
began  to  dawn  upon  the  exiles  that  they  were  here  to  stay 
and  must  accordingly  adjust  themselves  to  the  new  condi¬ 
tions.  How  much  it  was  to  their  credit,  and  what  supreme 
evidence  it  was  of  their  moral  and  intellectual  power  that  they 
were  able  to  win  for  themselves  an  independent  position,  and 
to  understand  American  life  as  well  as  they  did!  But,  dur¬ 
ing  these  years,  German  radicalism  had  been  rife,  and  in 
September,  1852,  had  reached  its  height  at  the  Congress  of 
Wheeling.^  The  New  Rome  was  the  written  expression  of 
the  doctrines  propounded  at  this  convention. 

The  radical  elements  among  the  German  immigrants  set 
themselves  to  the  task  of  organizing  an  association  of  the 
liberally  minded  element,  in  order  to  bring  it  under  one 
head.  With  this  end  in  view,  they  held  yearly  assemblies  in 
one  or  the  other  of  the  great  cities,  to  which  came  delegates 
from  all  the  various  radical  and  progressive  organizations.^ 
At  these  Congresses  there  was  scarcely  any  reform  or  theory 
which  was  not  propounded,  and  no  burning  question  which 
was  not  very  completely  discussed.^  To  be  sure  there  was 
much  brought  forward  that  was  extremely  impracticable,  but 
many  proposals  and  resolutions  uttered  here  for  the  first  time, 
later  found  a  place  on  the  platform  of  the  great  political  par¬ 
ties.^  Everyone  was  allowed  to  express  his  ideas  freely,  and 
no  matter  how  extreme  or  how  fantastic,  they  would  all  re¬ 
ceive  consideration.  Men  like  Heinzen,  Goepp,  Hassaurek, 
and  Theodor  Kaufmann  took  a  prominent  part  in  these  con¬ 
ventions.  It  was  at  a  meeting  in  Cleveland,  that  Heinzen 
gave  utterance  to  his  famous  statement  that  the  President  of 
the  United  States  was  nothing  less  than  a  king  in  a  dress 
suit.® 

^  Kapp,  Aus  und  iiber  Amerika,  v.  I,  p.  319.  Also  Kaufmann,  Die 
Deutschen  im  Amerikanischen  Biirgerkriege,  p.  110. 

^  Klauprecht,  Deutsche  Chronik  in  cler  Geschichte  des  Ohio-Thales, 
p.  187. 

®  Mueller,  Aus  den  Erinnerungen  eines  Achtundvierzigers,  p.  204. 

*  Ibid,  p.  205. 

®  Heinzen,  Teutscher  Radikalismus  in  Amerika,  Neue  Folge,  v.  I, 
p.  307  et  sq. 


13 


At  one  of  these  assemblies,  held  in  Philadelphia,  we  have 
the  first  inkling  of  a  plan  such  as  was  later  outlined  at  the 
Wheeling  Congress.  Professor  Gottfried  Kinkel,  of  Ger¬ 
man  revolutionary  fame,  had  been  sent  to  this  country  by  the 
German  revolutionary  committee  in  London,  for  the  purpose 
of  collecting  money  from  the  German- Americans  to  aid  in 
the  founding  of  a  republic  in  Germany.  He  achieved  a  cer¬ 
tain  amount  of  success,  which  caused  the  anti-Kinkel, faction 
in  the  revolutionary  party  to  send  to  this  country  for  a  sim¬ 
ilar  purpose,  a  certain  exile  from  Baden,  Amand  Gogg  by 
name.^  He  proposed  to  revolutionize  Germany  not  so  much 
with  the  aid  of  funds  collected  in  this  country  as  by  the  or¬ 
ganization  of  immigrant  associations  who  were  to  accomplish 
the  desired  result  by  the  intellectual  emancipation  of  the 
masses.  In  other  words  he  dreamed  of  an  inner  rather  than 
an  outer  revolution. ^  But,  as  funds  were  desirable  in  any 
ease,  he  founded  the  German  Revolutionary  League,  in  Phil¬ 
adelphia,  immediately  upon  his  arrival  in  America.  The 
chief  purpose  of  this  league  was,  of  course,  the  intellectual 
emancipation  of  which  I  have  already  spoken.  An  equally 
important  consideration  was  the  collection  of  American  gold 
to  aid  in  the  dethronement  of  European  tyrants.  At  the 
meeting  in  Philadelphia,  the  following  resolution  was  pre¬ 
sented  : 

‘  ‘  That  in  the  opinion  of  the  present  congress,  every  people 
upon  throwing  off  the  yoke  of  its  tyrants  ought  to  demand 
admission  into  the  league  of  states  free,  that  is,  into  the  Amer¬ 
ican  Union;  so  that  these  states  may  become  the  nucleus  of 
the  political  organization  of  the  human  family  and  the  start¬ 
ing  of  the  World’s  Republic.”  ® 

This  resolution  was  enthusiastically  supported  by  a  few  of 
the  more  radical  delegates,  but  the  Congress  as  a  whole,  al¬ 
though  coinciding  with  these  views,  believed  that  the  adop¬ 
tion  of  the  resolution  would  be  injudicious.  In  spite  of  the 
support  which  Gogg  received  from  many,  the  majority  of 

^Der  Deutsche  Pionier,  v.  VII,  p.  118. 

2  Ibid,  V.  VIII,  p.  91. 

®  Poesche  and  Goepp,  The  New  Rome,  p.  99. 


14 


the  refugees  were  opposed  to  the  undertaking,  for  they  clearly 
saw,  that  to  secure  help  for  Germany  from  America  was  im¬ 
possible.^  In  addition  to  this,  it  may  be  added,  that  Gbgg 
had  a  much  less  pleasing  personality  than  Kinkel,  and  that  he 
was  no  such  persuasive  orator.  Financial  aid,  therefore,  did 
not  come  to  him  as  easily  as  it  had  come  to  Kinkel.  It  was  to 
stimulate  interest  in  this  project  that  another  meeting  was 
called  at  Wheeling,  Virginia,  in  September,  1852. 

This  assembly  met  on  the  sixteenth  of  the  month  and  was 
attended  by  some  sixteen  delegates,  representatives  of  1,112 
revolutionary  societies,  chiefly  of  the  northern  states.  The 
spirit  of  the  Congress  of  Wheeling  may  best  be  illustrated  by 
the  following  extract  from  the  address  of  Charles  Goepp  one 
of  the  chief  speakers  of  the  meeting :  ^ 

“We  demand  the  extension  of  American  freedom.  A  free¬ 
dom  which  can  be  victorious  without  the  aid  of  American 
gold  or  the  sacriflce  of  American  lives.  Just  as  Greece  had 
her  Trojan  war  which  transformed  her  from  a  state  of  fisher¬ 
men  to  a  glorious  light  of  civilization,  just  as  the  Crusades 
roused  western  Europe  from  the  darkness  of  the  middle  ages, 
so  America,  thanks  to  the  god  of  war,  will,  in  all  probability, 
have  her  Iliad,  and  her  Crusades  to  win  for  her  a  place  among 
nations  as  the  center  of  humanity.  A  war  to  extend  our  in¬ 
stitutions  is  not  a  war  of  conquest;  for,  in  as  much  as  the 
spirit  of  our  government  is  the  principle  of  self  government, 
or  rather  of  non-government,  its  expansion  does  not  neces¬ 
sitate  the  introduction  of  violence,  but  rather  the  abolition  of 
the  latter.  It  is  the  purpose  of  our  government  to  restore  the 
sovereignty  of  the  individual  by  striking  off  the  shackles 
against  which  he  has  striven  in  vain. 

“The  American  continent  divides  the  ocean  as  Italy  the 
Mediterranean,  and  just  as  ancient  Rome  overlooked  the  cir¬ 
cle  of  lands  which  skirted  that  inland  sea,  so  the  United 
States  shall  overlook  the  whole  of  the  world.  The  universal 
empire  of  the  future  belongs  to  them.  An  empire  not  of 

^  Heinzen,  Teutscher  Radikalismus  in  Amerika,  Neue  Folge,  v.  I, 
p.  65. 

^Der  Deutsche  Pionier,  v.  VIII,  p.  96. 


15 


conquest  and  of  subjugation,  not  of  inheritance,  not  of  in¬ 
ternational  frictions  and  hatreds,  but  of  fraternity,  of  equal¬ 
ity  and  of  freedom.  We  implore  it  to  fulfill  its  destiny  and 
out  of  many  worlds  create  a  single  one.  ’  ’ 

This  peaceful  and  at  the  same  time  grandly  conceived  so¬ 
lution  of  the  conflict  between  the  old  and  the  new  world  which 
Goepp  proposed,  was  at  first  received  with  astonishment  by 
the  delegates.  Astonishment  changed  to  admiration,  and  en¬ 
thusiasm  ran  high.  Goepp ’s  speech  was  embodied  into  a  pro- 
nunciamento  apprising  the  American  people  of  the  resolu¬ 
tion  of  the  Wheeling  Congress  to  annex  the  world,  and  was 
translated  into  many  languages.^  Meetings  were  arranged 
for  in  various  cities  and  the  title  of  The  People’s  League 
of  the  Old  and  the  New  World  was  adopted  and  universal 
annexation  was  decided  upon  as  the  program  of  the  league.^ 
At  the  time  of  the  adoption  of  this  resolution,  it  was  ac¬ 
cepted  more  or  less  humarously  by  a  part  of  the  German  pop¬ 
ulation,  particularly  the  ‘‘Grays,”  whereas  the  Americans 
regarded  it  as  simply  an  expression  of  opinion  of  several 
cranks.®  With  the  published  appearance  of  these  principles 
in  The  New  Borne,  with  its  scholarly  background,  the  derision 
abated,  and  men  began  to  see  that  after  all,  the  idea  was  not 
as  fantastic  as  it  had  appeared  upon  first  sight.  Nor  were 
these  ideas  by  any  means  new,  as  was  generally  supposed  at 
this  time;  for  they  had  been  given  utterance  only  recently 
by  Giuseppe  Mazzini,  the  Italian  patriot,  in  connection  Avith 
his  ideas  concerning  Young  Italy,  which  crystallized  about 
the  conception  of  a  world  republic.  Mazzini  tells  us  about 
these  ideas  in  his  autobiography  as  follows :  ^ 

“At  that  time,  (about  1830),  even  the  immature  concep- 

^  Der  Deutsche  Pionier,  v.  VIII,  p.  93,  also  Mueller,  Aus  den  Er- 
innerungen  eines  Achtundvierzigers,  p.  207. 

^  Poesche  and  Goepp,  The  New  Rome,  p.  100. 

®  Kaufmann,  Die  Deutschen  im  Amerikanischen  Biirgerkriege,  p.  105. 
^Mazzini,  Joseph  Mazzini,  His  Life  Writings,  and  Political  Prin¬ 
ciples,  (Ed.  Garrison)  p.  30  et  seq.  Mazzini  was  at  this  time  confined 
in  the  prison  at  Savona,  on  account  of  his  close  connection  with  the 
Italian  Carbonari.  It  was  here  that  his  first  thoughts  of  Young  Italy 
came  to  him. 


16 


tion  (of  Young  Italy)  inspired  me  with  a  mighty  hope  that 
flashed, before  my  spirit  like  a  star.  I  saw  regenerated  Italy 
becoming  with  one  bound  the  missionary  of  a  religion  of  pro¬ 
gress  and  fraternity  far  greater  and  vaster  than  that  she 
gave  to  humanity  in  the  past. 

“The  worship  of  Rome  was  a  part  of  my  being.  The 
great  Unity,  the  One  Life  of  the  world  had  twice  been  elabor¬ 
ated  within  her  walls.  Other  peoples,  their  brief  mission  ful¬ 
filled,  disappeared  forever.  To  none  save  her  had  it  been 
given  twice  to  guide  and  direct  the  world.  There,  life  was 
eternal,  death  unknown.  There,  the  Rome  of  the  Republic, 
concluded  by  the  Caesars,  had  arisen  to  consign  the  former 
world  to  oblivion,  and  borne  her  eagles  over  the  known  world, 
carrying  with  them  the  idea  of  right,  the  source  of  liberty. 
In  later  days  she  had  again  arisen, ....  and  at  once  constitu¬ 
ted  herself. . .  .the  accepted  center  of  a  New  Unity,  elevat¬ 
ing  the  law  from  earth  to  heaven,  and  substituting  to  the 
idea  of  right,  an  idea  of  duty,  a  duty  common  to  all  men, 
and,  therefore,  the  source  of  their  equality.  Why  should 
not  a  New  Rome,  the  Rome  of  the  Italian  people,  portents  of 
whose  coming  I  deemed  I  saw — arise  to  create  a  third  and 
still  vaster  unity;  to  link  together  and  harmonize  earth  and 
heaven,  right  and  duty;  and  utter  not  to  individuals  but  to 
peoples  the  great  word  Association — to  make  known  to  free 
men  and  equals  their  mission  here  below.” 

Many  of  the  European  exiles  and  the  German  radicals, 
as,  for  instance  Christian  Esselen,^  had  come  in  contact  with 
Mazzini  in  Switzerland  and  heard  his  theories.  Karl  Hein- 
zen  met  him  later  in  London  and  became  intimately  ac¬ 
quainted  with  him.  It  is  possible  that  Theodor  Poesche,  one 
of  the  authors  of  The  New  Homey  may  also  have  been  influ¬ 
enced  by  him.  At  any  rate,  the  German  reformers,  ready  to 
accept  a  similar  program,  saw  in  America  a  much  better  cen- 

*  Rattermann,  Article  on  C.  Esselen. 


17 


ter  for  such  an  activity  than  was  offered  by  the  Rome  of 
Mazzinid 

III. 

Before  proceeding  with  an  analysis  of  the  principles  and 
doctrines  contained  in  The  New  Rome,  a  few  words  concern¬ 
ing  the  authors  may  be  in  place.^ 

Charles  Goepp  was  born  September  4,  1827,  at  Gnadenfeld 
in  Silesia,  where  his  father  taught  in  the  seminary  of  the 
Moravians.  He  received  his  first  schooling  at  Herrenhut  in 
Saxony  to  which  his  parents  had  moved  in  1833.  In  1834, 
however,  they  emigrated  to  the  United  States,  remained  for  a 
short  time  in  New  York,  and  soon  after  moved  to  Bethlehem, 
Pennsylvania,  where,  the  elder  Goepp  was  for  a  long  time 
supervisor  of  the  estates  of  the  Moravian  church. 

From  1837  on,  Charles  Goepp  attended  a  private  school, 
and  in  1841-2  he  entered  the  theological  preparatory  school 
of  the  Moravians.  In  pursuance  of  his  father ’s  wishes,  he  next 
matriculated  in  the  Moravian  Seminary  of  Niesky  in  the  Lau- 
sitz,  but  in  spite  of  the  excellence  of  the  instruction,  the  iron 
discipline  was  irksome,  and  two  years  later  he  returned  to 
Pennsylvania.  From  this  time  on,  he  devoted  himself  to  the 
study  of  Law,  in  Easton,  Pennsylvania,  and  in  the  year  1848 
entered  actively  into  national  politics,  supporting  the  Free 
Soil  candidates.  In  1850,  he  entered  into  partnership  with 
Joseph  Minor  and  opened  law  offices  in  Philadelphia,  but  the 
untimely  death  of  his  partner  two  years  later,  brought  this 
successful  venture  to  a  sudden  close. 

Goepp  took  a  very  live  interest  in  the  activities  of  the 
forty-eighters  and  was  one  of  the  leaders  of  the  radicals  at 
the  Wheeling  Congress.  Like  the  other  German  reformers 
he  joined  the  Republican  Party,  and  was  a  zealous  adherent 
of  Fremont  in  1856  and  of  Lincoln  in  1860.  After  the  out¬ 
break  of  the  Civil  War,  Goepp  entered  the  field  as  lieutenant 
of  the  Easton  “Jager,”  and  was  later  promoted  to  Captain 
^  It  is  difficult  to  say  exactly  how  close  were  the  relations  between 
the  German  refugees  and  the  great  Italian  patriot.  But  the  evidence  of 
the  influence  of  Mazzini’s  ideals  upon  these  men  would  lead  us  to  con¬ 
clude  that  they  were  considerable. 

^  For  the  facts  of  Goepp’s  life  I  am  indebted  to  Koerner,  Das  Deut¬ 
sche  Element,  p.  121  et  seq. 


and  adjutant  of  the  Ninth  Pennsylvania  volunteers.  After 
three  months  of  service  he  returned  to  private  life  and  con¬ 
tinued  his  law  work  in  partnership  with  his  brother  Max. 
In  1863  he  joined  Friedrich  Kapp  in  his  law  offices  at  New 
York  and  practiced  there  until  Kapp  returned  to  Germany 
in  1869.  After  the  death  of  his  wife,  in  1870,  Goepp  traveled 
for  some  time  in  Europe,  and  following  his  return  he  was 
elected  judge  of  the  Marine  Court  of  New  York,  a  position 
which  he  very  ably  filled. 

Goepp  was  in  every  respect  an  able  and  influential  man, 
and  his  knowledge  of  both  German  and  English  placed  him  in 
a  position  to  know  and  understand  both  peoples  as  few  at  that 
time  were  able  to  know  them.  His  efforts  in  behalf  of  the 
forty-eighters  were  especially  commendable.  In  addition  to 
The  New  Rome  Goepp  was  the  author  of  a  work  on  parlia¬ 
mentary  practice  and  the  translator  of  numerous  German 
works. 

Theodor  Poesche,^  the  co-author  of  The  New  Rome,  was 
born  in  the  tovm  of  Zoeschen  in  Saxony,  March  23,  1826.  His 
father  was  a  teacher  and  had  destined  his  son  for  the  minis¬ 
try.  Poesehe  accordingly  attended  the  Gymnasium  and  later 
the  University  of  Halle.  Coming  under  the  influence  of  the 
distinguished  Professor  Arnold  Ruge,  he  was  interested  in 
the  political  movements  of  the  time  and  actually  became  the 
leader  of  the  one  day  revolt  in  Halle  which  was  nipped  in  the 
bud  by  the  arrival  of  the  regular  cavalry.  Poesehe  was  forced 
to  flee  to  South  Germany  whence  he  emigrated  to  England, 
his  presence  having  been  discovered.  In  England,  he  joined 
for  a  time  the  colony  of  revolutionists  in  London  where  his 
friend  Ruge  was  and  where  he  doubtlessly  met  the  celebrated 
Mazzini. 

In  1852  Poesehe  sailed  for  New  York  and  after  several  un¬ 
successful  attempts  to  secure  employment,  obtained  a  posi¬ 
tion  as  teacher  in  a  Philadelphia  school.  It  was  here  that  he 
met  his  future  wife,  the  daughter  of  the  celebrated  revolu- 

am  indebted  to  Mr.  Paul  J.  Pelz  of  Washington,  D.  C.  for  these 
facts  of  Poesche’s  life.  Mr.  Pelz  worked  up  the  biography  from  Poesche’s 
papers.  On  account  of  its  intrinsic  value  I  have  appended  it  to  the  pres¬ 
ent  article. 


19 


tionist  Eduard  Pelz.  He  was  married  in  1854,  and  four  years 
later  moved  to  St.  Louis  to  become  the  Head  Master  of  a  pri¬ 
vate  school  there. 

The  outbreak  of  the  Civil  War  necessitated  the  dissolution 
of  the  school  and  Poesche  returned  to  Philadelphia.  Shortly 
afterwards  he  was  appointed  statistician  in  the  newly  or¬ 
ganized  Internal  Revenue  Bureau,  which  office  he  filled  with 
distinction  until  the  Democratic  administration  of  Cleveland 
brought  his  activity  in  this  department  to  a  close.  So  great 
and  distinguished  was  Poesche ’s  service  in  this  Bureau,  that 
on  the  special  request  of  the  German  ambassador,  he  was  sent 
by  the  government  to  Germany  to  confer  with  Prince  Bis¬ 
marck  on  statistical  matters.  Later  Poesche  was  appointed 
statistician  on  the  Census  Bureau.  Poesche  died  on  Decem¬ 
ber  27,  1899.  His  great  life  work  was  a  study  of  the  Aryans, 
entitled,  Die  Arier,  which  appeared  1878. 

During  the  years  of  the  revolution  and  the  great  immigra¬ 
tion  to  America,  Goepp  followed  developments  in  Europe 
with  great  eagerness,  especially  Heinzen’s  agitation  in  Ger¬ 
many,  and  the  efforts  of  the  Hungarians  to  obtain  their  lib¬ 
erty.  The  revolutionary  movements  in  Europe  inspired  him 
with  the  idea  of  making  America  the  center,  so  to  speak,  of 
new  revolutions  and  not  alone  an  asylum  for  exiles.  There 
should  be  a  republic  of  peoples,  and  America  was  to  be  the 
hub  of  the  universe.  He  set  forth  these  views  in  a  little  pam¬ 
phlet,  E  Pluribus  TJnum,  and  later  expressed  the  same  doc¬ 
trines  at  the  Wheeling  Congress  in  1852,  as  we  have  already 
seen.  At  the  Congress  of  Philadelphia,  he  became  acquainted 
with  Poesche  and  with  his  book  Das  Neue  Bom.  This  work 
had  been  written  in  1850,  but,  unfortunately,  the  manuscript 
had  fallen  into  the  hands  of  the  German  police  and  could  not 
be  published. 

Shortly  after  the  Congress  of  Philadelphia,  Poesche  and 
Goepp  decided  to  combine  their  books  into  one,  and  early  in 
November,  1852,  the  work  was  completed.  The  first  draft  of 
the  book  was  written  by  Poesche  in  German.  It  was  then 
translated  into  English  by  Goepp.  The  first  part  of  the  book, 
which  deals  with  the  political  phases  of  the  question,  was 


largely  the  work  of  Poesche,  whereas  the  second  division,  on 
social  organization,  was  chiefly  the  result  of  Goepp’s  thought. 

The  New  Borne  opens  with  several  pertinent  arguments 
as  to  just  why  America  should  be  regarded  as  the  center  of  a 
world  republic,  equalling,  and  at  the  same  time  surpassing 
the  ancient  empire  of  Rome.  The  fact  that  the  United  States 
is  in  a  position  to  own  the  whole  continent  and  has  command 
of  two  oceans,  gives  her  an  immense  advantage  over  any  other 
country.  According  to  our  two  authors,  the  first  step  which 
the  United  States  must  take  toward  the  acquisition  of  a  world 
dominion  are  to  be  the  annexation  of  Cuba  and  Haiti.  These 
island  states,  at  all  times  turbulent,  were  constantly  requir¬ 
ing  intervention  on  the  part  of  the  United  States,  and  the 
unsuccessful  revolution  in  Cuba  in  1851,  led  by  Lopez,^  the 
sole  purpose  of  which  was  to  annex  Cuba  to  the  United 
States,  seemed  to  strengthen  the  general  desire  that  Cuba 
should  be  a  part  of  this  country.  For  all  practical  purposes 
the  prophecy  of  the  two  Germans  in  regard  to  this  island  has 
been  verified. 

The  proposal  of  our  authors  of  annexing  Canada  does 
not  seem  at  all  strange  to  us  who  are  familiar  with  the  much 
quoted  statement  of  Speaker  Champ  Clark.  Even  at  that 
time  reciprocity  parties  were  at  work  in  Canada.  The  United 
States  at  that  time  refused  reciprocity,  and  Mr.  Mackenzie, 
the  Canadian  statesman,  explained  this  refusal  by  the  fact 
that  our  government  desired  annexation.^ 

The  easy  victory  of  the  United  States  over  Mexico,  and 
the  acquisition  of  California,  seemed  to  point  the  way  to  fur¬ 
ther  territorial  expansion  in  Central  America.  Then,  as  now, 
the  population  of  these  countries  was  of  a  low  order  of  civi¬ 
lization  and  extremely  illiterate,  but  in  contrast  to  present 
conditions  the  inhabitants  were  at  that  time  anxious  for 
American  government,  and  even  offered  the  control  of  the  gov¬ 
ernment  to  General  Winfield  Scott,  as  he  himself  tells  us  in  a 
speech  made  at  Sandusky.^  As  the  two  authors  express  it,  a 

^  Koerner,  Memoirs,  v.  I,  p.  568. 

^  Poesche  and  Goepp,  The  New  Rome,  p.  13,  footnote. 

3  Ibid,  p.  18. 


21 


mere  prominciamento  would  have  effected  the  union  which, 
they  predict,  it  will  take  another  war  to  accomplish.  The 
annexation  of  the  Isthmus,  of  Hawaii  and  the  settlement  of 
the  valley  of  the  Amazon,  complete  the  program  to  which  the 
United  States  were  to  apply  themselves  in  the  opinion  of  our 
authors.  Two  of  these  projects  have  recently  been  carried 
out,  while  the  third  still  remains  to  be  accomplished. 

While  this  external  expansion  is  going  on  the  authors  pre-  ^ 

diet  no  less  an  increase  within  the  United  States  itself.  At 
that  time  the  immigration  was  as  numerous  as  it  was  excellent 
in  quality,  and  the  growth  of  the  native  population,  was  equal-  ^ 

ly  great.  Poesche  and  Goepp  could  not  foresee,  however,  the 
effect  of  the  civil  war  upon  our  population;  nor  could  they 
anticipate  the  adjustment  of  affairs  in  Germany  and  France, 
which  cut  off  our  immigration  from  these  sources,  the  cheeks 
upon  the  Chinese  immigration  and,  lastly,  race-suicide,  all  of 
which  have  since  been  instrumental  in  hindering  the  rapid 
growth  of  the  nation. 

The  New  Rome  points  out,^  that  the  chief  problems  of 
this  predicted  rapid  growth  of  the  United  States  will  be  the 
formation  of  a  national  character.  This  character  will  be  de¬ 
termined  by  the  character  of  the  immigration  to  this  coun¬ 
try.  The  preponderance  of  the  steadier  and  better  educated 
Germans  will  in  a  large  measure  be  decisive ;  the  Romanic  in¬ 
fluence,  exerting  itself  almost  exclusively  in  matters  of  taste, 
cannot  wield  the  power  of  the  Teutonic  element,  and,  accord¬ 
ingly,  must  remain  passive.  The  Slavonic  element  is  con¬ 
sidered  of  lesser  importance  in  the  development  of  our  na- 
tional  character. 

In  the  problem  presented  by  the  amalgamation  of  the  var¬ 
ious  races  the  negro  loomed  up  at  that  time  as  the  most  alarm¬ 
ing  element.  It  must  be  remembered,  that  the  negroes  -were  # 

then  still  enslaved,  but  The  New  Rome  predicts  their  emanci¬ 
pation  in  the  near  future.^  This  does,  of  course,  not  mean  the 
final  solution  of  the  problem,  and  the  authors  cannot  be  said 
to  have  found  a  particularly  good  one.  Neither  transporta- 

^  Poesche  and  Goepp,  The  New  Rome,  p.  56. 

*  Ibid,  p.  57. 


22 


tion,  nor  extermination  are  considered  by  them  worthy  of  con¬ 
sideration.  The  crossing  of  black  females  with  white  males 
is  suggested  by  them  as  the  best  solution  of  the  problem,  for, 
by  this  process,  the  black  females  are  improved  without  taint 
to  the  white  race.  The  scheme  is,  of  course,  entirely  imprac¬ 
ticable,  for  it  does  not  provide  for  the  black  males.  Never¬ 
theless,  however  absurd  or  impossible  it  may  seem,  to  this  day 
no  better  solution  to  the  question  has  been  proposed,  and  it 
still  confronts  us,  though  for  obvious  reasons  with  far  less 
actual  force  than  in  the  ante  bellum  days. 

The  authors  next  raise  the  question  whether  the  people 
will  be  satisfied  with  simply  uniting  the  various  peoples  on 
one  continent,  and  whether  the  unity  of  all  the  races  will  not 
‘‘call  for  a  unity  of  the  state.”  ^  “Will  not  the  emigrants,” 
they  ask,  “who  have  found  under  these  institutions  the  goal 
of  their  hopes,  which  they  vainly  sought  at  home,  determine  to 
extend  the  shadow  of  these  institutions  so  as  to  enable  them  to 
return  to  the  lands  of  their  birth  and  re-establish  their  social 
and  industrial  connections  there  without  resigning  the  poli¬ 
tical  advantages  once  secured?  Will  not  their  former  com¬ 
patriots  determine  to  share  these  privileges,  without  paying 
for  them  the  price  of  expatriation?”  In  the  opinion  of  the 
authors  political  freedom  and  national  wealth  go  hand  in 
hand.  Where  there  is  power  in  the  few  the  many  cannot  but 
suffer.  Wealth  is  the  offspring  of  trade.  All  that  is  neces¬ 
sary  is  to  make  political  sovereigns  of  the  European  serfs,  and 
the  result  will  be  that  our  trade  with  them  will  be  as  active 
as  that  among  the  Americans  is.  But  if  the  welfare  (i.  e.  the 
acquisition  of  wealth)  of  Americans  and  Europeans  is  the 
standard  of  right  and  justice,  then  it  is  the  right  of  both  or 
either  to  demand  perfect  freedom  of  mutual  trade.  Freedom 
of  trade  requires  free  government.  “The  people  will  never 
stop  short  of  a  mutual  guaranty  of  republican  governments, 
but  republican  government  is  only  the  insurance  of  the  sov¬ 
ereignty  of  the  individual,  and  that  is  the  root  and  core  of  the 
American  institutions  of  1776  and  1787.  The  American  Un¬ 
ion  must  infederate  into  its  political  pale  all  the  countries 

^  Ibid,  p.  59. 


23 


with  which  it  is  brought  into  social  contact.  The  American 
Constitution  is  the  political  expression  of  the  present  phase  of 
human  development ;  it  must  be  coexistent  and  coextensive 
with  that  which  it  expresses.  ’  ’  ^ 

The  authors  are  fully  aware  that  their  proposition  of 
having  the  United  States  “infederate”  the  countries  with 
which  they  trade  ‘‘is  as  yet  everywhere  received  with  hor¬ 
ror  or  with  derision.”  Strangely  enough  they  believe  that 
the  objection  to  their  Utopian  plan  proceeds  chiefly  from  what 
they  consider  a  mistaken  idea  of  nationality,  which  they  call 
“a  remnant  of  Europeanism  which  is  yet  imbedded  in  the 
American  mind.”  Nothing  will  show  better  the  fallacy  of 
the  philosophy  of  cosmopolitanism  and  its  lack  of  historical 
appreciation  than  the  method  by  which  the  authors  proceed  to 
“eradicate”  the  conception  of  nationality. 

Man ’s  impulse,  they  argue,  is  always  flght,  his  afterthought 
friendship.  Hence  the  beginnings  of  human  intercourse  con¬ 
sisted  in  flghting.  The  individual  skirmishes  continued  un¬ 
til  some  particularly  stalwart  rowdy,  by  the  terror  of  his 
prowess  induced  two  or  three  others  to  combine  against  him. 
This  was  the  origin  of  tribes  which,  of  course,  fought  among 
each  other  as  the  individuals  did.  From  the  chiefs  of  the 
tribes  arose  the  kings.  The  latter  soon  required  a  capital,  a 
stronghold  for  themselves  and  a  gathering  place  for  their 
immediate  followers.  Together  with  cities  language  devel¬ 
oped.  For  “not  until  men  began  to  build  cities,  had  their 
contrivances  for  the  exchange  of  thought  attained  that  degree 
of  uniformity  which  entitled  them  to  the  name  of  language.  ’  ’  - 

Community  of  language  is  the  well-spring  of  nationality. 
“The  patriotism  of  nationality  is  found  to  arise  in  every 
instance,  exactly  when  a  flxed  and  matured  language  becomes 
the  medium  and  the  element  of  a  flxed  nationality^.  In  the 
middle  ages  we  have  none  of  it.  The  empire  of  Charlemagne 
knev/  nothing  of  France,  Germany,  Italy,  or  Spain;  the  dis¬ 
tinctions  were  then  only  between  ‘Christendom  and  Heathen¬ 
ess.’  ” 

^  Poesche  and  Goepp,  The  New  Rome,  p.  62. 

^  Poesche  and  Goepp,  The  New  Rome,  p.  64  et  sq. 


24 


‘‘In  so  far  as  the  growth  of  nations/’  they  continue,  “was 
the  growth  of  an  understanding  between  people  of  the  same 
tongue  to  unite  for  mutual  defence  and  assistance,  it  was  an 
advance  in  the  motions  of  humanity.  But,  just  as  isolated 
individuals  gradually  became  aware  of  each  other’s  existence, 
so  these  fictitious  individuals,  the  nations,  were  necessarily 
brought  into  contact  with  each  other.  The  result  in  both  cases 
was  the  same.  They  fought  until  they  learned  to  talk  to¬ 
gether.  ’  ’  ^ 

America,  however,  in  the  opinion  of  our  authors,  occu¬ 
pies  a  distinctly  different  position.  Nations,  they  tell  us,  are 
unions  based  upon  community  of  speech.  This  the  Americans 
have  renounced  in  favor  of  a  union  based  on  a  unity  of 
thought.  “Thus,”  they  assert,  “fell  nationality  and  arose 
the  republic.  The  native  Americans  partly  have  been  forced 
to  doff  the  European  part  of  their  title;  and  they  have  done 
wisely.  It  is  the  duty  of  the  American  party  to  combat  all 
European  traditions  which  are  incompatible  with  American¬ 
ism;  above  all,  that  of  nationality.  To  vindicate  individual¬ 
ism  against  nationality,  is  the  office  of  America.  That  is,  at 
the  same  time,  the  whole  force  and  scope  of  the  revolution; 
—  thus,  the  revolution  which  arose  in  and  with  America,  must 
for  ever  return  to  it ;  and  America,  which  began  in  revolution, 
must  live  in  it  and  end  with  it.  When  the  dominion  of  na¬ 
tionality  is  crushed,  and  the  sovereignty  of  the  individual  is 
attained,  everywhere  and  everyhow,  the  missions  of  revolu¬ 
tions  and  of  America  will  both  be  accomplished.”  ^ 

“Our  ‘form  of  government,’  ”  they  continue,  “miscalled 
from  a  fallacious  use  of  European  terms,  is  a  system  of  non¬ 
government,  of  the  absence  of  all  dictation;  and  the  imposi¬ 
tion  of  non-government  is  a  contradiction  in  terms.  We  do 
not  propose  to  force  the  Cubans  to  expell  their  Captain- 
General,  but  to  prevent  the  Captain-General  from  forcing  the 
Cubans  to  retain  him.  We  do  not  compel  the  Japanese  to 
trade  with  us,  but  the  Japanese  government  to  abstain  from 
preventing  the  intercourse  of  the  Japanese  with  us,  if  they 

^  Ibid,  p.  67  et  sq. 

“  Ibid,  p.  71. 


25 


think  proper  to  open  it.  We  go  behind  nationalities  to  find 
the  people.  This  is  the  head  and  front  of  our  offending;  this 
is  what  will  give  to  the  American  Revolution  the  empire  of 
the  world.  ’  ’  ^ 

The  arguments  here  advanced  show  how  little  the  authors 
knew  about  the  historical  origin  of  language  and  its  intimate 
relation  with  the  make-up  of  national  character.  Their  dream 
of  a  new  Rome  seems  to  have  carried  with  it  the  illusion  of  a 
uniform  language,  such  as  Latin  was  during  the  time  of  the 
Roman  Empire  and  the  early  middle  ages;  but  they  forget 
that  the  despotic  attempt  of  imposing  a  uniform  language, 
uniform  laws  and  customs  upon  the  various  conquered  na¬ 
tionalities  was  one  of  the  chief  causes  which  brought  about 
the  fall  of  the  Roman  Empire.  “A  republic  of  thought”  in 
which  neither  nationality  nor  community  of  speech,  the  very 
essence  of  nationality,  have  a  place,  is  a  philosophical  abstrac¬ 
tion  born  from  the  systems  of  Hegel  and  Feuerbach,  of 
which  our  authors  seem  to  have  had  a  taste.  The  extreme  in¬ 
dividualism  which  the  authors  preach  as  constituting  the  his¬ 
torical  mission  of  America,  is  certainly  a  form  of  non-gov¬ 
ernment,  which,  strange  to  say,  is  at  present  again  being  ad¬ 
vocated  by  certain  lawless  elements  or  “interests”  in  our 
country. 

England,  with  her  immense  possessions  is  presented  by 
Poesche  and  Goepp  as  the  first  power  to  be  annexed  under 
their  plan  of  a  world  republic.  The  English  at  that  time 
had  no  intention  of  permanently  keeping  their  colonies.  Aus¬ 
tralia,  in  particular,  appeared  as  a  ready  object  of  annexa¬ 
tion  in  view  of  the  fact  that  its  population  was  at  that  time 
preponderatingly  American.  This  period  of  American  su¬ 
premacy  on  the  island  has  long  since  ceased  and  the  proposal 
of  Poesche  and  Goepp  would  today  be  impossible. 

England  herself,  it  is  pointed  out  is  diminishing  in  power 
and  the  United  States  are  rapidly  superceding  her.  Two  facts, 
the  very  serious  decrease  in  the  British  population,  and  the 
bad  financial  condition  of  that  country,  call  for  reform,  and 
the  only  effective  remedy  which  our  authors  see  is  annexa- 

^  Ibid,  p.  74. 


26 


tion.  India  and  Africa  are  to  be  included,  and  they  are  to 
be  won  over  through  the  aid  of  the  American  traders  and 
consuls.  American  influence  was  strong  in  these  countries  as 
well  as  in  Australia,  and  as  it  was  before  the  union  of  Great 
Britain  with  India,  Poesche  and  Goepp  saw  an  opportunity 
for  American  intervention  which  was  not  unjustiflable.^ 

Next  to  England,  Germany  appears  to  our  authors  as  the 
most  important  country  for  the  Americans.  The  social  and 
political  turmoil  of  that  country  called  for  some  immediate 
remedy.  The  hope  of  another  revolution  had  already  passed, 
in  as  much  as  the  leaders  and  all  the  prominent  agitators  had 
been  exiled.  The  German  immigration  and  the  revolutionary 
leaders  in  London  were  all  desirous  of  seeing  intervention 
by  the  United  States,  but  intervention  alone  did  not  satisfy 
Poesche  and  Goepp.  Annexation  was  to  them  the  sole  pana¬ 
cea,  for  only  in  annexation  to  the  United  States  did  they  see  a 
positive  guarantee  of  republicanism.  The  other  Teutonic 
countries,  Holland,  Switzerland  and  Scandinavia  are  to  be  an¬ 
nexed  at  the  same  time. 

Russia  and  the  whole  of  the  Slav  nationality  appear  to 
our  authors  as  the  great  rivals  of  the  United  States  in  their 
project.  This  empire,  corrupt,  and  decayed  to  the  very  core, 
is  held  together  by  the  Czar,  in  whom  both  the  religious  and 
the  monarchical  elements  are  combined.  The  United  States, 
by  its  activities  in  the  Pacific,  is  already  attacking  them  in 
the  rear,  and  the  process  of  Germanization  thru  which  Rus¬ 
sia  is  passing  will  prove  a  great  aid  toward  its  final  annexa¬ 
tion;  but  the  greatest  struggle  of  all  time  will  take  place  be¬ 
tween  these  two  competing  nations,  in  which  the  United 
States  is  expected  to  issue  victorious. 

Strangely  enough,  the  significance  of  the  control  of  the 
Mongolian  races  is  not  appreciated  by  the  authors,  yet,  the 
present  trend  of  events  would  indicate  that  the  key  to  the 
control  of  the  Pacific  rests  with  these  peoples.  Conditions 
in  China  are  pointed  out  as  favorable  for  a  proposal  of  annex¬ 
ation  and  republican  government.  At  present,  the  Chinese 

^  Poesche  and  Goepp,  The  New  Rome,  p.  94. 


27 


have  attained  the  latter,  but  the  former  proposal  they  would 
never  tolerate. 

The  absorption  of  the  Romanic  races  by  the  United  States 
of  the  World  is  also  deemed  inevitable.  These  races  have 
long  held  the  suzerainty  of  Europe,  and  France,  in  1852,  ap¬ 
peared  as  the  most  powerful  obstacle  in  the  way  of  the  world 
republic,  with  the  sole  exception  of  Russia.  Time  and  again 
Germanic  victory  has  settled  the  question  between  Teutonic 
and  Romanic  supremacy,  and  thus  it  will  be  in  this  case;  the 
Anglo-Germanic  World  Empire  will  overwhelm  the  Gallic  rule. 

Having  finally  disposed  of  the  question  of  annexation,  the 
authors  proceed  to  discuss  the  social  organization  of  the  new 
state,  and  trace  existing  tendencies  in  their  historic  develop¬ 
ment.  Poesche  and  Goepp  see  in  the  American  tariff  system 
the  greatest  danger  to  the  expansion  of  the  state  not  only 
externally,  but  -also  internally.^  To  them  it  is  at  once  un- 
American,  in  denying  “vivifying  capacity  to  business,”  and 
at  the  same  time  is  a  restraint  upon  the  freedom  of  the  in¬ 
dividual  and  what  seemed  worst  of  all  to  them,  a  preservative 
of  nationality.  As  long  as  distribution  remains  normally 
active,  the  tariff  is  successful,  but  no  sooner  do  we  have  over¬ 
production,  a  natural  phenomenon  under  this  system,  than 
there  follows  panic.  This,  our  authors  assert,  will  continue 
until  there  is  a  settlement  between  capital  and  labor.^  On 
the  whole,  these  financial  crises  have  proved  to  be  invigorat¬ 
ing  to  business,  and  have  invariably  been  follow^ed  by  an  im¬ 
proved  system  of  intercourse  which  in  turn  serves  to  pre¬ 
vent  panics. 

There  follow  here  a  series  of  very  remarkable  prophecies 
which  have  either  been  fulfilled  or  are  on  the  point  of  so  be¬ 
ing.  Universal  steam  navigation,  complete  telegraph  and 
cable  systems  which  will  unite  the  countries  and  thus  do 
away  with  nationality,  are  predicted.  On  the  heels  of  such 
complete  intercourse  will  follow  free  trade,  and  after  unfet¬ 
tered  commerce,  will  come  universal  annexation.  Such  an 
event  will  necessitate  better  means  of  communication,  and 

^  Poesche  and  Goepp,  The  New  Rome,  p.  134. 

» Ibid,  p.  139. 


28 


the  conquest  of  the  air  seems  to  offer  the  best  solution  to  this 
problem/  How  this  idea  must  have  been  scoffed  at  in  the 
fifties,  we  can  well  imagine,  but  today  we  have  men  like  Zeppe¬ 
lin  and  Wright  who  are  bringing  it  to  fulfillment. 

Poesche  and  Goepp,  like  the  rest  of  the  German  reformers, 
had  a  goodly  streak  of  modern  socialism  in  their  intellectual 
makeup,  and  they  give  evidence  of  it  in  several  doctrines 
which  they  propose.  They  very  earnestly  advocate  the  aboli¬ 
tion  of  feudal  tenure,  which  they  contend  is  the  existing 
system  in  this  country,  and  the  substitution  of  pure  allodial 
tenure.^  Patent  rights  are  to  be  abolished  as  being  un-dem- 
cratic,  as  is  imprisonment  for  debt  and  the  whole  system  of 
collecting  debts.  This  latter  reform  was  achieved  long  ago, 
but  the  surrender  of  patent  rights  by  the  American  would 
scarcely  be  seriously  considered  by  the  typical  American. 

Thruout  the  entire  discussion  runs  the  thought  that  com¬ 
mercial  intercourse  is  to  be  the  great  equalizer  and  pathfinder 
for  annexation,  and  by  means  of  it  the  World  Republic  will 
be  made  possible.  The  moral  obstacles  to  the  scheme  of 
Poesche  and  Goepp  will  give  way  before  improved  means  of 
intercourse,  and  the  last  political  obstacles  will  be  removed 
when  the  political  preponderance  of  capital  over  labor  is 
abrogated  and  the  sovereignty  of  the  individual  is  consum¬ 
mated.^ 

IV. 

Sixty  years  have  elapsed  since  the  doctrines  of  The  New 
Rome  were  first  advanced  at  the  Congress  of  Wheeling,  and 
•it  is  only  by  means  of  the  perspective  thus  gained  that  we  can 
come  to  a  true  conclusion  concerning  the  real  value  of  the 
schemes  so  ingeniously  propounded.  How  little  the  opinions 
of  contemporaries  are  to  be  esteemed  in  political  prophecies, 
we  have  already  seen  from  the  case  of  the  program  of  Karl 
Heinzen,  whose  proposals  were  condemned  by  the  politicians 
of  his  day  as  wild  and  impossible  of  realization,  but  whose 

^  Ibid,  p.  141  et  sq. 

^  Ibid,  p.  160  et  sq. 

®Ibid,  p.  171. 

29 


projected  reforms  are  now  almost  universally  being  adopted. 
Thus,  in  judging  the  value  of  The  New  Rome,  we  must  take 
into  consideration  not  only  the  influence  which  it  may  have 
exerted  at  the  time,  but  also  the  extent  to  which  its  prophe¬ 
cies  have,  been  verified. 

It  is  indeed  difficult  to  ascertain  the  meaning  of  this  work 
for  the  Germans  of  this  country.  Suffice  it  that,  although  the 
‘‘Grays’^  saluted  it  with  a  considerable  amount  of  scorn,  the 
forty-eighters,  impregnated  as  they  were  with  the  same  gen¬ 
eral  thoughts  of  the  book,  saw  mirrored  in  it  the  expression  of 
their  own  political  ideals. 

As  far  as  the  realization  of  the  prophecies  of  the  two  Ger¬ 
mans  is  concerned,  we  find  ourselves  face  to  face  with  what  is 
apparently  an  interesting  paradox.  We  have  on  the  one  hand 
many  of  the  details  of  the  prophecies  of  Poesche  and  Goepp 
fulfilled,  but  we  find  on  the  other  hand  that  the  real  underlying 
principle  of  the  book,  and  the  very  principle  which  gives  the 
work  an  exceptional  value,  has  been  overlooked  in  this  coun¬ 
try  for  over  half  a  century.  At  the  same  time,  however,  we 
notice  that  it  is  at  present  being  adopted  by  the  chief  re¬ 
formers  of  English  imperialism,  the  leaders  of  the  home 
rule  movement  in  the  Great  Britain.  For  it  is  they  who  advo¬ 
cate  the  principle  of  an  empire  which  is  at  the  same  time  a 
democracy.  And  it  is  this  concept,  and  not  merely  the  gen¬ 
eral  imperialistic  idea  of  The  New  Rome,  which  distinguishes 
the  program  of  Poesche  and  Goepp  from  the  so-called  “Anglo- 
Saxon  Imperialism,”  which  is,  in  the  last  analysis,  simply  an 
organized  system  of  exploitation  of  conquered  territory.  This 
has  been  the  fundamental  policy  of  the  colonial  expansion 
not  only  of  Great  Britain,  but  also  of  the  United  States.  Let 
us  briefly  examine  the  essential  features  of  this  policy. 

The  English  imperialistic  idea,  as  we  know  it  now,  was 
first  expressed  by  Carlyle,  in  the  year  1843,  when  he  advanced 
the  doctrine  that  a  more  civilized  and  a  more  powerful  nation 
has  the  right  to  oppress  a  weaker  people,  and  that  if  the  in¬ 
habitants  of  a  country  are  unable  to  secure  food  and  work,  it 
is  the  duty  of  the  fatherland  to  obtain  such  for  them,  even 


30 


by  force,  in  other  parts  of  the  earth. ^  But,  as  he  points  out 
in  Chartism^  such  a  proceeding  must  be  beneficial  not  only 
to  the  conquerors,  but  also  to  the  conquered,  if  it  is  to  be 
permanent.^  The  problem  of  overpopulation  is  to  be  solved 
by  a  well  regulated  immigration.  He  also  dreams  of  making 
London  the  center  of  his  future  commonwealth,  just  as  My- 
cale  was  the  center  of  the  Ionic  movement  in  ancient  Greece. 

This  doctrine  of  Carlyle’s  was  for  a  long  time  disregarded, 
economic  questions  at  that  time  occupying  the  British  peo¬ 
ple  almost  exclusively.  Indeed  the  prosperity  of  a  colony 
was  then  considered  as  a  sign  of  its  approaching  independ¬ 
ence,  and  no  effort  was  made  to  retain  such  prosperous  col¬ 
onies.^  During  this  period  Canada  was  very  active  in  work¬ 
ing  for  its  independence.  With  the  rise  of  Lord  Beacons- 
field,  however,  English  colonial  politics  began  to  assume  an 
entirely  different  aspect.  An  imperial  tariff,  a  military  law, 
and  a  representative  assembly  in  the  capital  were  parts  of  the 
program  which  he  endeavored  to  carry  thru.  In  spite  of  the 
fact  that  his  policy  was  clearly  opposed  to  colonial  freedom, 
he  was  greatly  honored  in  the  colonies,  and  for  the  first  time 
the  British  imperial  policy  was  placed  on  a  firm  basis.  See¬ 
ley,  who,  in  1883,  wrote  on  the  expansion  of  England,  was 
especially  in  favor  of  the  assembly  of  representatives,  for, 
as  he  said,  the  history  of  England  is  no  longer  the  history  of 
Parliament  in  Westminster,  but  is  the  history  of  the  whole 
empire,  and  a  system  must  be  established  to  hold  together  the 
loose  ends  of  the  vast  dominion.  The  future  of  England  does 
not  depend  on  India,  according  to  him,  but  on  the  union  of 
the  English  speaking  colonies.^ 

The  policy  of  Rhodes,  the  great  imperialist,  is  too  well 
known  to  require  much  discussion ;  suffice  it  to  say  that  under 
his  guidance,  England  reached  the  height  of  her  imperial 
development.  English  influence  was  extended  in  South  Africa, 
and  the  Boer  war  of  1900,  which  finally  settled  the  question 

^  Die  Grenzboten,  vol.  LVIII,  p.  16. 

^Carlyle,  Chartism,  p.  332. 

®Die  Grenzboten,  vol.  LVIII,  p.  18. 

*Die  Grenzboten,  vol.  LVIII,  p.  22. 


31 


of  British  hegemony  in  this  region  may  be  considered  the 
direct  consequence  of  his  policies.  The  English  imperial 
policy,  is,  as  I  have  said  before,  in  the  last  analysis,  a  policy 
of  ruling  and  exploiting  conquered  territory.  The  exponents 
of  this  form  of  imperialism  have,  of  course,  surrounded  it 
with  a  certain  mystic  and  almost  religious  halo,  to  serve  as  a 
cloak  for  certain  questionable  practices  under  this  policy; 
and  the  average  Englishman,  like  the  Hebrew  prophet  of 
old,  believes  the  English  race  to  be  the  chosen  of  God  to  pro¬ 
pagate  the  gospel  of  “freedom,  justice  and  peace”  by  means 
of  its  imperial  policy.  As  one  writer  expresses  it,  “There 
is  but  one  rule,  and  Cecil  Rhodes  is  its  prophet.  ’  ’  ^ 

England  has  always  looked  with  alarm  upon  the  colonial 
growth  of  other  nations,  and  the  territorial  expansion  of  the 
United  States  in  1898  caused  the  English  the  gravest  con¬ 
cern.  It  is  not  our  intention  here  to  enter  into  a  lengthy 
discussion  of  the  American  imperialistic  policy,  but  simply 
to  indicate  the  present  tendencies.  After  the  close  of  the 
Spanish-American  war,  the  American  nation  found  itself  for 
the  first  time  facing  the  problem  of  whether  they  should  con¬ 
tinue  their  former  policies  or  discard  them  and  adopt  the 
principles  so  successfully  carried  out  by  Great  Britain.  The 
latter  course  was  chosen,  and  then  arose  the  new  and  difficult 
problem  as  to  what  was  to  be  the  status  of  these  newly  ac¬ 
quired  lands.  It  scarcely  seemed  feasible  to  put  these  coun¬ 
tries  inhabited  by  a  heterogeneous  population  of  natives  and 
Spaniards  on  the  same  political  footing  as  the  states  or  even 
the  territories  of  the  union,  and  it  was  inevitable  that  the 
United  States  should  finally  break  away  from  the  principles 
of  political  equality  which  had  ruled  its  policies  for  over  a 
century.  The  result  was  as  anticipated.  In  the  first  case 
which  came  up  before  the  Supreme  Court,  which  was  the  final 
arbiter  of  the  question,  that  of  De  Lima  v.  Bidwell,^  it  was 
ruled  that  upon  the  cession  of  Porto  Rico  to  the  United 
States,  the  island  became  a  part  of  the  United  States,  and  that 
no  duties  could  be  levied  until  there  was  legislation  to  that 

^  Ibid,  p.  198. 

>182  U.  S.  1;  1901. 


32 


effect.  The  next  case,  of  Downes  v.  Bidwell  ^  the  court  held 
that  Congress  could  impose  discriminating  duties  upon  Porto 
Rico  as  it  was  not  a  part  of  the  United  States  within  the 
meaning  of  the  revenue  clauses  of  the  constitution  of  the 
United  States.  The  newly  acquired  territories  were  not  to 
be  considered  as  territories  in  the  generally  accepted  sense, 
but  as  conquered  territory  in  the  possession  of  the  United 
States  themselves. 

Thus  we  find  that  the  United  States  have  adopted  the 
Anglo-Saxon  imperialistic  policy  of  exploitation  and  the 
splendid  future  of  a  world  republic  extending  its  blessings 
to  all  nations,  which  Poesche  and  Goepp  had  dreamed  for  this 
country  seems  more  remote  and  Utopian  than  ever.  As  we 
have  already  seen,  the  two  forty-eighters  had  conceived  an 
empire  of  sovereign  states,  with  a  general  congress  such  as 
actually  exists  in  the  United  States.  But  in  no  wise  did  their 
political  program  even  hint  at  a  policy  such  as  the  Anglo- 
Saxon  principle  of  exploitation.  The  rulings  of  the  Su¬ 
preme  Court  seem  to  have  precluded  the  possibility  of  our 
nation  ever  assuming  the  role  which  Poesche  and  Goepp  had 
hoped  it  was  destined  for,  lest  the  people  should,  after  all, 
realize  their  error  and  provide  legislation  which  will  turn  our 
future  development  in  the  right  direction. 

How  long  it  will  be  before  the  American  people  do  this, 
it  is  difficult  to  say.  Certain  reformers  in  Great  Britian,  on 
the  other  hand,  have  gradually  been  formulating,  during  the 
last  decade,  a  program  in  many  ways  not  dissimilar  to  that  of 
Poesche  and  Goepp.  The  keynote  of  this  proposed  new 
policy  is  the  formation  of  a  parliament  for  the  English  speak¬ 
ing  peoples  of  the  empire.  It  is  a  noteworthy  fact  that  they 
do  not  include  tlm  huge  bulk  of  subjects  who  are  of  other 
nationalities.  This  policy,  already  advocated  by  Gladstone 
and  Seeley  in  the  earliest  home  rule  agitations  has  again  been 
forcibly  expressed  in  the  recent  home  rule  bill  introduced  into 
Parliament  on  April  13,  1912.  The  English  advocates  of  this 
program  see  in  it  the  sole  salvation  of  the  empire  and  the  one 

n82  U.  S.  284;  1901. 


33 


remedy  to  prevent  the  gradual  disintegration  of  their  vast 
imperium.^ 

In  conclusion  we  may  say  that  The  New  Borne  is  not  only 
a  document  of  the  intense  political  idealism  of  the  forty- 
eighters,  but  also  the  expression  of  their  mistaken  philosophy 
of  abstract  cosmopolitanism.  No  project  was  too  grand  for 
their  consideration,  or  too  expansive.  But  we  must  not  for¬ 
get  that  this  document  was  written  before  Bismarck  had 
taught  his  countrymen  the  lesson  of  realism  in  politics.  The 
German,  as  Poesche  and  Goepp  themselves  point  out,  was, 
at  that  time,  essentially  universal  in  his  thoughts  and  feel¬ 
ings.  Suppressed  by  tyrannical  princelings  and  cast  down  by 
the  long  political  disruption  of  his  country,  he  was  obliged 
to  satisfy  himself  by  dreaming  of  Utopias,  grand  in  concep¬ 
tion,  but,  unfortunately,  difficult  of  attainment.  Nevertheless, 
it  is  well  to  remember,  that  Utopias,  both  social  and  political, 
have  had  a  great  influence  upon  the  development  of  human 
affairs.  What  today  may  appear  to  be  an  ideal  picture,  im¬ 
possible  of  realization,  may  tomorrow  be  an  actual  fact.  The 
New  Rome  is  such  a  Utopia,  and  the  last  of  its  kind.  It 
marks  a  turning  point  in  the  history  of  the  forty-eighters 
who  soon  afterward  broke  away  from  their  dreams  of  a  world 
republic  and  entered  upon  a  new  period  of  practical  activity 
in  this  country.  For,  in  spite  of  the  mistaken  idealism  in 
which  The  New  Rome  was  written,  and  in  spite  of  the  mis¬ 
taken  conception  of  nationality,  which  we  may  name  as  the 
fundamental  fallacy  of  the  work,  the  lofty  principle  to  which 
The  New  Rome  gives  utterance,  namely  that  of  a  democratic 
imperium,  will  live  as  an  ideal  toward  which  we  must  unceas¬ 
ingly  strive.  To  be  sure,  it  is  the  application  of  this  princi¬ 
ple  to  smaller  and  more  restricted  spheres  which  will  give 

^  The  New  Rome  is  not  only  to  be  considered  as  a  forerunner  of 
present  day  imperialism,  but  also  in  many  respects  as  a  prophecy  of  the 
peace  movement  which  is  at  present  interesting  to  many  of  the  leaders 
in  political  and  intellectual  life.  The  union  of  the  world  within  one 
harmonious  federation,  and  the  abolition  of  national  distinction  according 
to  The  New  Rome  was  calculated  to  do  away  with  international  bicker¬ 
ings,  and  to  abolish  war  by  abolishing  its  cause.  Moreover,  the  federa¬ 
tion  of  the  world  was  not  to  be  effected  by  blood  and  iron,  but  solely  by 
peaceful  methods. 


34 


this  ideal  of  Poesche  and  Goepp ’s  a  lasting  value.  The  United 
States  by  adopting  this  principle  in  its  territorial  expansion 
may  thereby  avoid  the  error  of  Great  Britain.  If  present 
day  tendencies  are  any  indication,  it  would  seem  that  imper¬ 
ial  democracy  will  succeed  the  essentially  vicious  principles 
of  Roman  Imperialism,  and  the  hopes  of  Poesche  and  Goepp 
may  at  some  future  day  to  a  certain  extent  still  be  realized. 

Appendix 

Theodor  Poesche  von  Paul  J.  Pelz 

^tl^eobor  $oefd)e  tvmhe  am  23.  9[)?dr3  1826  in  3oefd£)en  bet 
SO^erfeburg,  $rot)tn3  (sacbfen,  aB  ditefter  @obn  be§  bortigen 
®orffdf)uImeifter§  geboren.  ©r  befinbte  ba§>  @t)mnafium  3U  §alD[e 
unb  fbdter  bie  Hniberfitdt  bafelbft. 

mar  bom  SSater  3ur  2:^beoIogie  beftimmt  unb  begonn  au(b 
bQ§  0tubium  berfelben,  fattelte  jehod)  bolb  3ur  um. 

©r  lernte  bort  ^rofeffor  5IrnoIb  9^uge  fennen,  ber  gro^en  ©tn= 
flufe  auf  feine  geiftige  ©ntmidfeinng  b^tte;  ebenfo  tnar  51. 
3SBlicenu§  fetn  greunb. 

Unter  foldien  ©infliiffen  mar  fein  SSunber  bafe  ber  en= 
tbufiaftifdie  junge  SO^^ann  fid)  mit  aller  (^nergie  unb  bober  93e= 
geifterung  ber  1848er  holitiftben  33emegung  al§  febr  tdtiger  51uf= 
miegler  unb  Seiter  anfcblo^.  ®r  bi^tifibierte  unb  rebete  bei  df= 
fentlid)en  SIoIBberfammlungen,  birigierte  bie  9[)^affen,  bie  ficb  in 
ber  holitiftben  53emegung  fammelten,  unb  ber  23  jdbrige  @ntbu= 
fiaft  mar  mdbrenb  be§  einen  ^age§  ber  §aEif(ben  S^ebolution  ge-' 
miyi(b  ber  ^aubtfiibrer  ber  ^emegung.  ©urcb  ba§  ©rfd^einen 
ber  reguldren  ^aDatterie  murbe  jebocb  ber  eintdgigen  ^iebolution 
balb  bie  abgebrodf)en,  unb  ^oef(be  fanb  e§  bod^  Oorteilbaft 

am  51benb  gu  t)erf(bminben. 

(Jr  manberte  nadb  ©iibbeutfd^Ianb  unb  unterbielt  eine  ^or- 
refbonbeng  mit  feiner  gamilie  burd)  eine  35ermanbte  in  einer 
anberen  0tabt,  fo  bafe  fein  SSerfted  unbefannt  blieb.  51B  ber 
53oben  in  (subbeutfd)Ianb  ibm  and)  gu  b^ife  murbe,  entfd^Iofe  er 
fid)  nad)  ©nglanb  gu  geben,  unb  fanb  bort  bei  51rnoIb  D^uge  in 
Conbon,  mobin  biefer  geflud)tet  mar,  eine  Oorldufige  ®eimat. 
©nglanb  mar  bamaB  giemlicb  boE  bon  flud)tigen  51cbtunbbiergi- 
gern  unb  bie  SSereinigten  (staaten  fdbie^^en  beffer  geeignet  eine 


35 


Sufunft  3U  griinben,  nad^bem  jebe  §offnung  t)erf(i&tDunben  tvax, 
bafe  in  ©eutfd^Ianb  Balb  eine  fretere  Suft  tve^)en  tniirbe.  5iu6er= 
bem  inar  ^oefd^e  in  ^reufeen  angeflagt  unb  gu  fed)§3ei)n  ^Q^iren 
@efdngni§  „in  contumaciam''  berurteilt  morben. 

Sirnolb  9iuge  blieb  in  ©nglanb  unb  mol^nte  frdter  in  33rig]&= 
ton. 

^oefd)e  fegelte  im  ^al^re  1852  nacf)  D^em  ?)orf,  unb  t)erfu(f)te 
bort  unb  in  Lofton  eine  ©teHung  al§>  Sel^rer  gu  erl^alten,  mar 
jebod^  nid^t  erfolgreicf).  33effer  gelang  e§  i^m  in  ^l^ilabelptiia, 
mo  er  33efc[)dftigung  aB  Sel^rer  in  l^dt)eren  0df)ulen  fanb. 

(Jr  murbe  I)ier  mit  bem  beriitimten  $omdot)at]^en  2)r.  don* 
ftantin  ^aering  befannt  unb  murbe  einer  ber  intimen  greunbe 
ber  55amilie.  llnter  ben  bort  fid)  lierfammeinben  33efud)eren  mar 
aud)  ber  junge  51bt)ofat,  dl^arle^  ©oef)!),  ber  (sof)n  be§  Befann* 
ten  Setter^  ber  ^erren^uter  (Semeinben,  ®r.  (^oepp,  in  Q3etBIeBem, 
$ennft)It)ania.  2)ie  Beiben  jungen  Sente  murben  Balb  Befreun* 
bet,  unb  al§  fie  fanben,  bafe  fie  Beibe  in  ^etreff  ber  3wtoft  ber 
35ereinigten  0taaten  gleid^e  Slnfid^ten  l^atten,  fo  BefdBIoffen  fie,  ge* 
meinfam  iBren  ^been  iiBer  bie  Sufunft  biefe§  Sanbe§  burdB  ^uBIi* 
fation  eine§  ^udBe§  5(u§brud  gu  geBen  unb  ba§  S^efultat  mar  ba§ 
je^t  gdnsIidB  bergriffene  The  New  Rome  or  The  United  States 
of  the  World,  New  York,  G.  B.  Putnam  &  Co.,  1853. 

(J§  mar  and)  in  ^r.  $aering§  ®au§,  mo  ^oefdBe  feine  gran 
3uerft  traf,  bie  bort  mit  iBrem  Slater,  bem  48er  Dlebolutiondr 
unb  (^(^lefifdBen  SfBgeorbneten  be§  Sranffurter  Slarlamente^, 
dbuarb  S^elg,  ber  in  9^em  ^orf  moBnte,  gum  SlefudB  mar.  D^acB 
einem  S^B^^e  murben  bie  jungen  Sente  einig  unb  grunbeten  in 
^BiiobelBBm  einen  ^au^Bnlt,  bon  mo  fie  im  ^aBre  1858  nacB 
0t.  Soui§  iiBerfiebelten,  moBin  ^oefcBe  einen  Siuf  aB  SlorfteBer 
einer  beutfdBen  ^ribatfcBuIe  Unter  Slnberen  Befanb  fidB 

Bier  and)  (General  grang  Siegel,  ber  bamaB  aB  ^rofeffor  fun* 
girte.  StB  ber  ^lirgerfrieg  auSBrad),  ging  bie  ©dBuIe  unter, 
unb  SloefdBe  fam  mieber  nadB  bem  Often  unb  berfudBte  9^em  ?)orf 
unb  ^BiiciBelBBiQ/  fcmb  jebocB  in  SSafBington  in  bem  neu  orga* 
nifierten  internal  Slebenue  Slureau  be§  (SdBaBamte§  aB  @ta* 
tiftifer  S3ef(Bdftigung,  in  meld)em  Stmte  er  eBrenbod  fidB  au^seidB* 
nete  BB  bie  bemofratifdBe  Slbminiftration  dlebelanb§  feiner  ^d* 


36 


tigfeit  etn  ©nbe  madite.  ©Reiter  T^atte  er  etne  ^teEiing  aB 
(©tatiftifer  im  ^enfu§  33ureQU  inne. 

^oefd^e  JT^ar  etn  intimer  greunb  bon  ."^arl  <Bd)nvs,  toeld^er  eine 
l^ot)e  ^Td^tung  fiir  il^n  l^atte  unb  feine  Entente  unb  Sat)igfeit  311 
fd^ci^en  mufete.  S^ternal  ^ebenne  33ureau  entmidtelte  fidf) 
^oefd^e  qB  ftatiftifdijer  ©i'i^ert  ber  5Xrt,  bafe  @raf  bon  ^l^ielmann, 
ber  beutf(X)e  33otfd^Qfter  in  SSaf^ington,  bie  SSereinigten  (staaten 
offiaieE  erfud^te,  il^n  nad^  Berlin  311  fenben  nm  ba  mit  Sb^^ft 
mordt  liber  ftatiftifd^e  2)etQiB,  iiber  bie  ®eutfct)Ianb  5ru§funft 
miinfd^te,  berfbnlid^  3U  fonferieren,  ina^  bann  aud^  gefdi)Ql^. 
^oefd[)e§  3bfommenfunft  mit  bem  grofeen  ^analer  tnar  fiir  beibe 
donferenten  fel^r  befriebigenb,  unb  ^oefd^e  tiatte  bie  d()re  bon 
^Bmorc!  ofter§  in  feine  SSoI^nnng  eingelaben  311  merben.  dr 
fungirte  andf)  bei  ber  ^Bmardtfeier  in  SSaftiington,  meld^e  in  ber 
doncorbia  ^irdf)e  bafelbft  am  6.  ^Eobember  1898  gel^alten  nmrbe, 
qB  ^rdfibent. 

groge  SebeiBmerf  ^oefd^eS  mar  feine  gorfd^ung  iiber 
bo§  dntftel^en  unb  SSad^Stum  be§  grdfeten  aEer  SO^enfd^enftdmme, 
bie  Slrier  unb  baffelbe  nmrbe  unter  bem  ^itel:  ^ie  51rier, 
ein  33eitrag  3ur  t)  i  f  1 0  r  i  f  d^  e  n  3i  n  1 1^  r  0  b  o  1 0  g  i  e , 
Sena,  Hermann  doftenoble,  1878,  berdffentlidiit.  dine  9iebifion 
nnb  SSeiterfiibrung  be§  3Serfe§  befinbet  ficb  in  feinem  97adf)Ia6. 

$oef(be  ftarb  nad^  einem  mebridbrigen  ibiagenleiben  in  3Baf^» 
ington  am  27ten  ©eaember  1899. 


37 


/ 


